In the case of Sproles et al. v. Binford, Sheriff, et al., 1931, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a Texas statute that regulated transportation of commodities violated the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause and interfered with interstate commerce. The law in question prohibited trucks from carrying loads exceeding set weight limits on public highways to prevent road damage and ensure safety. The plaintiffs were truck operators who argued that this law unfairly restricted their business operations and infringed upon their constitutional rights. The court upheld the validity of the state regulation by ruling in favor of Binford (the sheriff). It found no violation against either interstate commerce or due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment as claimed by Sproles (truck operators). Instead, it held that states have broad authority to regulate use of its highways for purposes such as preventing road damage or ensuring safety - even if these regulations might affect interstate commerce indirectly.

In the dissenting opinion for Sproles et al. v. Binford, Sheriff, et al., Justice Stone argued that the majority's decision to uphold a Texas statute regulating truck transportation infringed upon interstate commerce and was therefore unconstitutional. He contended that while states have the right to regulate local businesses for public safety or welfare reasons, they cannot do so in a way that discriminates against or burdens interstate commerce. In this case, he believed the Texas law did just that by imposing weight restrictions on trucks which disproportionately affected out-of-state operators who had no choice but to use heavier vehicles due to their long-distance hauls. This effectively gave an unfair advantage to local operators with shorter routes who could comply more easily with these regulations without significantly impacting their operations.